As of late I found myself listening to an old debate between
William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman.WLC is in full repeat mode in this debate. But I noticed he
takes on the argument of “Integrity of
Oral Traditions” much like Strobel did in his book “The Case for Christ”.Oddly I have also started reading my copy of “Forged” too…which
was not planned to happen at the same time.So, here is my ponderings I have for other Atheists in the
forum.They hold Oral Traditions to such high regard. Even going as
far as to say those people WERE illiterate and ORAL was ‘where it was at’…they
treated oral stories with reverence and accuracy.OK…that’s a good argument (lets pretend) then what does that
say about The Sayings of Jesus, The Gospel of Thomas, The gospel of Mary Madeline
and all the other Gnostics? Many of them were proven to be lies and forgeries…so
what does that say about early oral tradition? Am I making sense?If Mark was correctly written down from Oral Tradition then why
are the other books from oral tradition not also included? They were good
enough to study back in the day. To me this flies in the face of the Oral
Tradition argument. What am I missing here? Why is the cannon’s oral traditions
held sacred but the Gnostics held with contempt..and why don’t good debaters
use this as a counter argument to the Integrity of Oral Tradition?

(02-11-2012 11:23 AM)Denicio Wrote: As of late I found myself listening to an old debate between
William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman.WLC is in full repeat mode in this debate. But I noticed he
takes on the argument of “Integrity of
Oral Traditions” much like Strobel did in his book “The Case for Christ”.Oddly I have also started reading my copy of “Forged” too…which
was not planned to happen at the same time.So, here are my ponderings I have for other Atheists in the
forum.They hold Oral Traditions to such high regard. Even going as
far as to say those people WERE illiterate and ORAL was ‘where it was at’…they
treated oral stories with reverence and accuracy.OK…that’s a good argument (lets pretend) then what does that
say about The Sayings of Jesus, The Gospel of Thomas, The gospel of Mary Madeline
and all the other Gnostics? Many of them were proven to be lies and forgeries…so
what does that say about early oral tradition? Am I making sense?If Mark was correctly written down from Oral Tradition then why
are the other books from oral tradition not also included? They were good
enough to study back in the day. To me this flies in the face of the Oral
Tradition argument. What am I missing here? Why is the cannon’s oral traditions
held sacred but the Gnostics held with contempt..and why don’t good debaters
use this as a counter argument to the Integrity of Oral Tradition?

None of the New Testament was based on "oral traditions". That false notion comes from two other traditions, which were not employed here. In one, it WAS true, and one, it was not true.

1. In Islam there really were people who memorized ancient Arabic poetry. They could recite many hundreds of pages of poetry from memory. They had a title. They were called Hafiz, or Hafez. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz

2. In Ancient Hebrew culture, there was no such position or tradition of "memorizing" texts. Everything was written, from day one.
Thus the premise is false. Everything was put on scrolls, or "torahs", since WAY before the Exilic period, (600-500 BCE). There was no set of people who's job it was to recite ancient poetry, or anything, from memory, except maybe some singers, did sing psalms. It's a fallacy. Torahs were read, or sung or chanted.

3. Before Mark, there is no gospel. Paul wrote in the 50's CE. He "knew" (was aware of), of no written or oral traditions. His "gospel, (his "good news"), was HIS good news. He referenced nothing, either oral or written. Mark was written later, and since the synoptics are so similar the Q Hypothesis has been formulated. People say, "oh it's just a hypothesis". It's like saying, "Evolution is *just* a theory". There IS no better explanation, and it's accepted by almost all real scholars, and has been for at least 75 years, (see the 1950's Interpreters Bible). They USED the Q document, and a Book of Sayings, to create the new gospels. No copy of Q or the Book or books of Sayings has been found yet.

Insufferable know-it-all. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.

I thought the New Testament was against oral traditions. That's a position they need to quit jerking around on, because as pleasurable as it may be to screw around with the heads of those beneath you, it's un-safe to give your word and then double back on it without working it correctly into your theology.

(02-11-2012 11:53 AM)lucradis Wrote: I'm sorry... what is the argument for oral tradition? I'm unfamiliar with this one. Maybe because I don't spend any time listening to WLC.

I don't really understand how something being passed down via hearsay suddenly becomes valid because of illiteracy rates.

The "Claim" is that they were Oral before they were written and that they were anal about keeping the oral traditions accurate.
My angle is this if that is true, then why are the Gnostics not true. Is Oral tradition valid or is it not. Folks like WLC try to have it both ways. When listening to the debate that seemed like an easy way for Bart to eliminate his opponent. SO the reason i ask is this...is there something else to the argument that i am missing. Bart is to smart of a guy to have let this reasoning slide by..unless there is more to the story.
WLC and Strobel use this Oral Tradition as a center piece in their discussion ...and use it in a way that it comes across like "You dummy, didn't you know oral traditions are too legit to quit and are more valid than written?". In sales we call that the 'assumptive' close. Forcing your assumptions on the buyer. If there is no push back..the the point is valid.
I never bought the validity of oral traditions.

(02-11-2012 11:53 AM)lucradis Wrote: I'm sorry... what is the argument for oral tradition? I'm unfamiliar with this one. Maybe because I don't spend any time listening to WLC.

I don't really understand how something being passed down via hearsay suddenly becomes valid because of illiteracy rates.

The "Claim" is that they were Oral before they were written and that they were anal about keeping the oral traditions accurate.
My angle is this if that is true, then why are the Gnostics not true. Is Oral tradition valid or is it not. Folks like WLC try to have it both ways. When listening to the debate that seemed like an easy way for Bart to eliminate his opponent. SO the reason i ask is this...is there something else to the argument that i am missing. Bart is to smart of a guy to have let this reasoning slide by..unless there is more to the story.
WLC and Strobel use this Oral Tradition as a center piece in their discussion ...and use it in a way that it comes across like "You dummy, didn't you know oral traditions are too legit to quit and are more valid than written?". In sales we call that the 'assumptive' close. Forcing your assumptions on the buyer. If there is no push back..the the point is valid.
I never bought the validity of oral traditions.

D

Strobel is eliminated. He has no training. He's a journalist. He's a complete dolt. Habermas also is eliminated. He has no expertise in Ancient Semitic Languages. He's clearly out of his depth, and he proves it every time he opens his mouth.

"Oral tradition" was not the way culture was transmitted in Ancient Israel, or even in the time of Yeshua. The Essene community, outside Jerusalem was WRITING everything down, since BEFORE Ezra brought back the Torah of Moses, (the first time any "bible" text "appeared").

Insufferable know-it-all. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.

Bucky,
Thanks for the replies and the links. I am glad you took on Bart's Blunder. When he started espousing math to prove history it felt slimy and cheap.
You should find a way to get your redone math formula and expliantion to ole Bart.
I had also heard a debate betwen WLC and Robert M Price. I am a big Price fan and was sorely dissappointed in his debate skills. He's just too darned nice. As debate's go...WLC was winning....then at the end in the Q&A Price finally gets a good question and sinks his teeth into WLC.

(02-11-2012 12:22 PM)Denicio Wrote: Bucky,
Thanks for the replies and the links. I am glad you took on Bart's Blunder. When he started espousing math to prove history it felt slimy and cheap.
You should find a way to get your redone math formula and expliantion to ole Bart.
I had also heard a debate betwen WLC and Robert M Price. I am a big Price fan and was sorely dissappointed in his debate skills. He's just too darned nice. As debate's go...WLC was winning....then at the end in the Q&A Price finally gets a good question and sinks his teeth into WLC.

D

Funny you should say that. I have actually talked to him about it by email. He's a nice guy. I have met him also, back before I was in college. Apparently no one actually had pointed out precisely what was wrong with the equation, to him. The first time I saw it, I went "wait wait wait...not so fast there bud"...and then really looked at it. I suppose we should refute it on YouTube publicly as Craig's Hall of Shame. Send me the Price link you're talking about if you have a sec. Thanks.

Insufferable know-it-all. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.

(02-11-2012 12:22 PM)Denicio Wrote: Bucky,
Thanks for the replies and the links. I am glad you took on Bart's Blunder. When he started espousing math to prove history it felt slimy and cheap.
You should find a way to get your redone math formula and expliantion to ole Bart.
I had also heard a debate betwen WLC and Robert M Price. I am a big Price fan and was sorely dissappointed in his debate skills. He's just too darned nice. As debate's go...WLC was winning....then at the end in the Q&A Price finally gets a good question and sinks his teeth into WLC.

D

Funny you should say that. I have actually talked to him about it by email. He's a nice guy. I have met him also, back before I was in college. Apparently no one actually had pointed out precisely what was wrong with the equation, to him. The first time I saw it, I went "wait wait wait...not so fast there bud"...and then really looked at it. I suppose we should refute it on YouTube publicly as Craig's Hall of Shame. Send me the Price link you're talking about if you have a sec. Thanks.

Here is a listing of the Price debate.
Price is price and i love listening to this guy speak. WLC drops names like they are going out of style, but as debates go..he followed good form....not really brokering in truth but good debate form. Price did not go back and really deliver death blows to WLC's points.
I notice WLC love to argue WITH points and sub points. Almsot overwhelming his opponent with crap to over come so they cant make their own argument.
The very last link titled "Price's rant" is priceless (no pun intended). "I'm going to hell in somebody's dogma"..those are words to live by! But all of Price's Q&A responses are better than the overall debate.

(02-11-2012 12:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Funny you should say that. I have actually talked to him about it by email. He's a nice guy. I have met him also, back before I was in college. Apparently no one actually had pointed out precisely what was wrong with the equation, to him. The first time I saw it, I went "wait wait wait...not so fast there bud"...and then really looked at it. I suppose we should refute it on YouTube publicly as Craig's Hall of Shame. Send me the Price link you're talking about if you have a sec. Thanks.

Here is a listing of the Price debate.
Price is price and i love listening to this guy speak. WLC drops names like they are going out of style, but as debates go..he followed good form....not really brokering in truth but good debate form. Price did not go back and really deliver death blows to WLC's points.
I notice WLC love to argue WITH points and sub points. Almsot overwhelming his opponent with crap to over come so they cant make their own argument.
The very last link titled "Price's rant" is priceless (no pun intended). "I'm going to hell in somebody's dogma"..those are words to live by! But all of Price's Q&A responses are better than the overall debate.

Yup. Craig is a formidable debater. I have proposed a "team preparation approach" for someone to challenge him. Whoever it would be would have to know Scripture, Theology, Logic, Philosophy, Quantum Mechanics, Geology, Chemistry, Genetics, Physics, and Biology. That person would be hard to find. I would bet that in months to come, and things as they are, someone with an iPod, or "tablet" hooked up to a "team", could remind a prepared debater, who has "reviewed the game tapes ), of what points he should bring up, and reply to. He's easily refuted, but it does take time, and an organized approach. Then at the end of a debate I also want someone to go after him publicly, and chastise for his "bad faith", and attempts at deception.

Insufferable know-it-all. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.